Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-23 CPC Packetr er THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTAI March 18, 1987 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET. AGENDA Approval of Minutes - February 23, 1987. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Case No. V/87-10 - Variance request for a seven foot variance to the side yard setback requirement for construction of a three 'season porch at 1208 North Broadway in the RB Residential Duplex District. Marge Knowlton, Applicant. 2. Case No. SUP/87-12 - Special Use Permit for a Residenti.al/Interior Design Studio at 320 West Myrtle Street in the RB Duplex Residential District. Lynn and Sandra Monson, Applicants. 3. Case No. SUB/87-11 - Minor Subdivision splitting 2.39 acres lot into two lots of .93 acres and 1.46 acres at 1819 North Fourth Street in the RA Single Family Residential District. Robert G. Troyer and Satu Suominen-Troyer, Applicants. 4. Case No. V/87-13 - Variance request for a sign program including seven roof signs at 1060 Curve Crest Blvd, in the IP-C Industrial Park Commercial District. LDR Company, Applicant. 5. Case No. CUP/V/87-14 - Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 30 ft. tall Carriage House/garage with dwelling unit above, with a rear yard variance of 6 feet, 25 inches required at 206 South Fifth Street in the RC-M Multi -family Residential District. Ronald Gullickson, Applicant. 6. Public Hearing on Brick Pond/South Greeley/Forest Hills, Frontage Road, Street and Land Use Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Case No. PUD/87-9 - Review of design details for conformity with previously approved Final PUD and zoning requirement for Woodland Lakes Project, including 400,000 sq. ft, commercial center and 99 room hotel. OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion of request by Freighthouse to locate a caboose adjacent to deck in front of Restaurant. (Information will be presented at meeting.) CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION Date: February 23, 1987 Time: 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Valsvik Mark Ehlenz Judy Curtis Jean Jacobson Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Nancy Putz Steve Russell, City Planner MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Hamlin Jay Kimble Dean Miller The meeting was called to order by Gerald Fontaine at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 26, 1987 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case No. Sub/87-2 Subdivision Plan Review to subdivide an irregular shaped 2.2 acre lot into five lots of 27,500 square feet to 14,850 square feet located in the R-A Single Family Residential District located South of the intersection of County Road #5 and West Sycamore Street. Form Weavers, Ltd., Applicant. The project was presented by the Applicant, Mr. George Parker. He indicated that the houses would probably cost in the range of $125,000 to $150,000. The size of the lots and design of the housing would be more consistent with Oak Glen, the development to the South. The Applicant then indicated that access to Lot 5 as shown on the plans would be provided via West Sycamore Street but could be provided off County Road #5 if approval could be gained from the County Public Works Department. The Planning Commission indicated concern with access off County Road #5 for Lot 5 because of site distance and the speed of cars. The Applicant indicated concern for the possible public improvement requirements (street curb, gutter and storm drainage) costs. He felt they may be too high and adversely affect the economics of the project. Staff suggested two conditions of approval to address the comments from the City's Consulting Engineer, February 20, 1987, regarding drainage and cover of the sewer pipe. Jim Reier, a homeowner in the area, questioned the Applicant on the cost of the houses. Dave Johnson, Oak Glen Developer was present. Approved 6-0 with seven conditions as listed below: 1 1. All building pad elevations shall be one foot above West Sycamore Street. 2. An in lieu public recreation fee shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. One front yard street tree shall be planted for each lot as approved by the Community Development Director. 4. Drainage easements shall be shown on the final plat so that drainage does not run on adjacent lots and is directed to West Sycamore, County Road #5 or drainage easement to the South of Lot 5. 5. The private sewer line to Lot 5 shall be covered with soil to meet City cover requirements. 6. There shall be no access to County Road for Lot 5. 7. The Applicant shall agree to pay for West Sycamore public improvement attributable to the subdivision. Case No-. SUP/87-5 Special Use Permit Review for conversion of 400 square foot office into apartment unit in a Mixed Use residential/office building at 220 South Third Street in the RCM Medium Density Multi -Family Residential.District. C.F. Rawlings, Applicant. Rob Kroiss, representing Mr. Rawlings, described the request. Nancy Putz asked if additional parking would be provided since two spaces are currently available and three are required. Mr. Kroiss said it was not the intention of the Owner at this time to add parking because it would take up backyard area but he may redesign the parking area in the future to provide additional parking. Commissionem.felt it was important for each residential unit to have one parking space. Gerald Fontaine asked if the proposed use would meet Building Code requirements. Staff indicated that the construction plans would be reviewed when they are submitted. Approved 6-0 with the following parking condition: 1. One additional off-street parking space shall be provided for the new rental unit. Finding: One additional parking space is required to meet Zoning requirements and not adversely affect the neighborhood. Case No. V/87-6 Variance review for construction of swimming pool in sideyard area located at 774 Eagle Ridge Trail in the R-A Single Family Residential District. Thomas J. McGlynn, Applicant. Mr. McGlynn presented his plans indicating there is not physically room for the pool in the backyard and the water table is too high. Planning Commissioners felt that the request was reasonable. Approved 6-0. Case No. SUP/87-7 Special Use Permit review of addition to an existing Church (Our Savior's Lutheran Church) in the R-A Single Family Residential District at 1616 West Olive Street. Ward A. Sessing, Applicant. Jack Evert spoke representing the Church. He said the Church would like to have the flexibility to pave the overflow parking lot to the West of the Church possibly at a latter date due to project costs. Commissioners felt that since the parking requirements are met by the existing improved lot, the overflow lot need not be improved at this time and that the main lot should be striped. Approved 6-0 with the following conditions: 1. Main parking lot shall be marked for parking. 2. The new relocated driveway apron to the overflow lot shall be paved. Case No. SUB/87-3 Subdivision Plan review to subdivide a 1.61 acre parcel into three parcels of 13,500, 14175 and 42,480 square feet located in the R-A Single Family Residential District at 311 West Willow Street. Larry Dauffenbach and Laura Marie Rausch, Applicants. Larry Dauffenbach described the three lot subdivision request. He saidhe currently lives in the residence on the property and intends to build a house on one of the two new lots. Staff indicated the City Attorney has reviewed an agreement for access to the property and the easement is not a constraint to subdivision. The roadway across the property is not a recognized public road The City's Consulting Engineer reviewed information presented by the Applicant on soil conditions for a septic system and suggest requiring a perk test before the Final Plat is approved. Don Engebretson said that when other new houses went in and new wells were drilled, the water table dropped requiring existing wells to be drilled deeper which was costly. Staff was asked to look into the regulations or review requirement for new wells. Approved with conditions. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Review Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. - The Commission reviewed the Ordinance. 2. Political Sign Ordinance - The Commission reviewed the previous Draft Ordinance and made changes regarding length of time political signs can be posted and distance signs can be posted from the street. Commission felt that the new regulation should be combined with the existing Industrial Park Political Sign requirements so that there would be two sets of regulations - one for residential areas and one for the Industrial Park area. 3 3. Brick Pond/South Greeley/Forest Hills/Frontage Road Plan Discussion. Steve Russell described the four road configurations and said, based on comments from the Commission and Review Agencies, Alternative #3 is recommended as the road alignment. A plan showing public utility locations was presented. Sewer and storm drainage facilities were shown. Two detention ponds would catch the water before it is piped into Brick Pond. Sewer service would be handled by a line in Harriet Drive (the Harriet Drive line was sized to accommodate the area). Overhead transparencies were presented showing existing zoning and three zoning alternatives for the area. Alternative #1 designated IP-C Commercial along the Frontage Road and IP-I behind. Alternative #2 designated IP-C along the Frontage Road and residential and industrial behind. The density of residential ranged from 8 to 29 dwelling units (D.U.) per acre. Alternative #3 indicated IP-C along the Frontage Road and North along South.Greeley to the School Offices. R-B Duplex behind that to the East and High Density Residential boarding the Forest Hills area and behind Surplus Outlet. Summarizing the comments of the delegation from Forest Hills; they were concerned about the impact of the proposed u.ses on their area. More specifically, area of concerns were the drainage impact and level of the Brick Pond, visual impact of new development on residential area, increased cut through pedestrian traffic from school to Burger King. Members generally supported Alternative #1 or a low density residential alternative for the land South of Forest Hills. Gary Swager, an area property owner, described his plans for the site. He said he would like to build 90 units on the 4.5 acres. The buildings would be three story similar to the Brick Pond 30 unit apartment now under construction. He stated there is a market need for multi -family housing and it is a responsibility of the City to provide a range of housing opportunities not just single family. Jack Lux, representing the Anez property, indicated support for the way Alternative #3 designated the Anez land Commercial and Multi -Family. He said the land Owner may be willing to dedicate the land closest to Forest Hills to the City for open space if they can receive an economic land use designation. After hearing the comments, the Planning Commission decided to schedule a Special Meeting on March 9, 1987 to discuss the land use alternatives and provide direction to Staff for a Public Hearing on March 23, 1987. 4. Annual Planning Institute Judy Curtis and Mark Ehlenz will attend the Institute on March 4, 1987 in St. Paul. 4 5. The Commission set March 23, 1987 as their next reqular meeting. 6. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution of Thanks for Helen Miller's work on the Planning Commission. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Steve Russell Community Development Director t 5 Planning Application Review: Case No. V/87-10 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Project Location: 1208 North Broadway Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Zoning District: RB, Duplex Applicant's Name: Marge Knowlton Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to setback requirements for construction of three season porch three feet from side property line. DISCUSSION: The application is to construct an addition to an existing single family residence. The required setback is ten feet. The porch is located on the North side of the house. The adjacent house on the lot to the North is approximately 80 ft. from residence. RECOMMENDATION: Denial . FINDINGS: The proposed addition does not meet setback requirements. VARIANCE FINDINGS: (a) There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described, in the findings, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or buildings. (b) For reasons set forth fully in the findings, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose. (c) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In addition to considering the character and use of adjoining land and buildings and those in the vicinity, in making such finding, the City Council shall take into account the number of persons residing or working in such buildings or upon such land and traffic conditions in the area among other considerations. ATTACHMENTS: Application and plan. f Cad' lumber Fee Paid __ --------- Dole Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FO,%M Street Location of Property: ------ $oujld f ,C T� -+ f T of4•J4.,T 3 Legal Description of Property: _ 2ALLL -t aA L'�k'2 s _ �? Owner: Name =____..________ _ __ eel[ .",27- 7e, 7 Address _1 ��__ ° ____ __ __ Phone: -N y351 7/� 5-_ Applicant (if other than owner): Name,__Y -_______________ Address _�??U__!r�'�?_=rr Phone: ------------ Type Date of Public Hearing: NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn. on back'o£ thfsI&m or at. tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. ca 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested."i�.' Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on ----------- (date) subject to the following conditions: ____________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ______ __________ subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------+--------- Comments: (Use other side), o 4 � � � o l� v U � v�(ZN VI �l 2 9 d� C 11 Planning Application Review: Case No. SUP/87-12 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Project Location: 320 West Myrtle Street Comprehensive Plan District: Apartment Zoning District: RB Duplex Applicant's Name: Lynn and Sandra Monson Type of Application: Special Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Special Use Permit for an Interior Design Studio and residence in existing single family residence. DISCUSSION: The request is for an 800 sq. ft. Interior Design Studio in an existing 2,400 sq. ft. single family residence. The Special Use Permit requirements allow for professional offices including physicians, architects, engineers and similar professional persons who reside in such main building and employees no more than one non-resident office assistant. The Interior Design Studio would seem to fit under the Special Use Permit definition. The 800 sq. ft. of office use requires four parking spaces. The three stall garage and driveway accommodate at least six spaces. The applicants have indicated that they would like to erect a business sign. The sign requirements allow one sq. ft. professional sign. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The business sign shall be one sq. ft. in area, affixed flat to the front of the residence and be non -illuminated. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Application and letter. 0 Custom Interiors of Odin PO Box 116 - Odin, MN 56160 Planning Commission - City of Stillwater c/o Mr. Steve Russell City Hall, 216 No. 4th St. Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Sirs: Harch 11, 1987 This letter is a request for issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate a business within an existing residence at 320 West Myrtle, Stillwater. My wife, Sandra Monson ASI16 and I have tendered an accepted purchase agreement to buy this house on the condition of a Special Use Permit being granted. We intend to operate a professional interior design studio utilizing approximately 800 square feet of the main floor. We will establish our personal residence on the upper floor and the remaining 400 square feet of the first floor. Our studio would consist of a client meeting area, conference room, office, and a resource room. We would meet with our clients on an appointment basis, therefore only two to four people would be in our studio at any one time. Once in a great while we may hold a seminar for people in the trade, and these would be limited in size to what would be a normal family gathering. There is a large driveway leading to a three -car garage at the back of the property and we could accomodate eight to ten cars on this driveway. Sandra and I plan to operate the studio ourselves with no outside employees. We plan to erect a business sign on the front of the house facing Myrtle Street. The sign would be in keeping with the style of the house and comply with city codes. Should this Special Use Permit be granted, we have set an April 30, 1987 closing date to purchase this property. We would open our studio as quickly as possible after this date. If you have any further questions, please call us at the number below. Sincerely, (507) 736-2363 PAS; 100 r �l & wi Case Number s112AL2_-/dU Fee Paid ----------- Dole Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Str eel Location of Property: V, partGl } 7y t 1.��-� ts, �R, zo Lac al Description of Pro ert : Calk • -v---1 -- 1c- --�- Qurck+.s� a�ir-eeu��. Owner: Name_LV�v`__av�c�_5a�,c�v�_�v�cvss�ri _u]!r�?lc�_ u_ RCG��c� A,�c:� ress --- O� __a �- �E __ c.: 0I Phone. -7 3 rp Applicant (if other than owner): Name __________ ----------------------- Address------------------------------ Phone: --------------- Type of Request:, ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat .n Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance ___ Other ..__________________ Description of Request: r`lA L LC��___�S�C�,i�__ i U=`�O-___�1LS___����V __ �eSAEV\C'e CL Signature of Applicant _ A^'�5�. Date of Public Hearing: NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn, on back or this.forna or at- tached, showing the following; 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. I - 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on _____ _____ (date) subject to the following conditions: _----_--_--__-_-__-_________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ________________ subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------ Comments: (Use other side), Planning Application Review: Case No. SUB/87-11 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Project Location: 1819 North Fourth Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Robert G. Troyer and Satu Suominen-Troyer Type of Application: Minor Subdivision PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The application is to subdivide a 2.39 acre lot into two lots of .93 and 1.46 acres. DISCUSSION: The application is to subdivide an existing 2.39 acre lot into two lots of .93 and 1.46 acres. An existing residence is located on the 1.46 acre lot. The new lot could gain access from North Fourth or West Poplar. The proposed subdivision meets the lot size requirements for the RA District. The new lot would have to pass a perk test before the final plat is approved. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (1) The Subdivision shall submit evidence that the new lot is suitable for a septic system before the final plat is approved. (2) The Final Plat shall be submitted and approved by the City within six (6) months of the approval. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: The project preserves significant natural features, i.e. large trees, water courses, scenic points, historical spots and similar community resources. ATTACHMENTS: Application, Certificate of Survey and Maps. ),'AC lei') Case Number Fee Paid _ 3d_�-------- Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE F O,tM Street Location of Property: _ 8� q �•r� L, YTw 57' //1_111tE.c l_ ,-t 5 2 3 It 5 .9 ry,t 6 6/ b� 4- L( S r?.��P /6't 3 /5/e k 5 Legal Description of Property: ----------------_-_-_____-________-_____ Owner: Name ------------------- Address _��� �__!�� _ ---------------- Phone: --------------- Applicant (if other than owner): Name --------------------------------- Address ------------------------------ Phone: -----------_--_ Type of Request: ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Variance ___ Other Description of Request: _ �__�__.�X_ Sr•w�..__=��rt__ %tifio _ se T4 `---5--? r-pw r J`'-'- 5^E---wr�% - _ G[_I►a_i= .y _c__-o�r 3S� Signature of Applicant. Data of Public Hearing: NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back of ,this form or u-" , tached, showing the following: rt] 1. North direction..` Cr 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 'r 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. ��^r `� : =:� 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. " 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 4* 7. Other information as may be requested.Y`.-"y Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Planning Commission on _____ --- (date) subject to the following conditions: ___________ ------------------------- Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions: ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: (Use other side), L:.A r y L �`!i�-,., a ,ram � `� @: Y STlLLWATER, MiNNESOTA Mir e-S.Ots Reg-i.s;errd Irnd Surveyor :tio. 7447 WiuorLsin Regi.:tered Liard SLrti'eyLbr ­71 t toy s ts0 c; ., /6P -f ISO - c 3 { L f : a L1 y - J; kv.. - --pooz a"a S;,'£.VE ':ALE FOR: 3ealtarr; Y,- --- - - --- --�--r _L^ sci:it•Toi`-'t`'. s• r I so• ---- ►,: -- f 4= rr.c Lct I. Bier.{ Cr_r_: and t: Aae-� g Q I here? r cr—:rp Vtat i s:.z ►r� ed t! ■ pro; t-ty dt+cr,bed - Q &.)D9h and Lhwa r the above is true and rorsec't p!ut of a dd a- -rev. 1967 'n, L s c a in :-ie�►;ierru ra S�rve�ai ?�fl. J—a=;� : • o�T h • ;,.� toy z r3� ._ km� 40 ra r COY r d f V 14 41 OU • C moo' ' �5.{ �y r . /SO .r -� - �{ ••t `SA41. 2t5 �• _ .T 1 �_ T � t 1" � • r •• l+ Sri �r4PF i 12.2• �'q�Y15E t � •! i 1 I • Q J al tors '� of = � Y3 �[rE� � SD • • a 1 I r+ C Ex. 5t..j, �►�4,FtE 2 s� bt,���.. o f CCJ{}C, `_ ,Lb a Planning Application Review: Case No. V/87-13 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Project Location: 1060 Curve Crest Blvd. Comprehensive Plan District: Industrial/Commercial Zoning District: IP-C Applicant's Name: LDR Company Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to the Sign Ordinance for a building sign program including seven signs totaling 288 sq. ft. nTSCl1SSTnN The application is for a building sign program comprised of seven signs, (3) 3'x12' and (4) 3'x15'. The Zoning Ordinance allows two signs per lot frontage, one business sign and one nameplate sign. The Ordinance does not allow roof signs, signs attached to the parapet of the building. The design band around the top of the building is not a parapet but has a similar appearance. The site is next to residences on the West and North suggesting a low profile sign program. Another sign alternative would be to have one combined business sign and smaller nameplate over each business entrance. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE: (a) There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or buildings. (b) For reasons set forth fully in the findings, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose. (c) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In addition to consider ing the character and use of the adjoining land and buildings and those in the vicinity, in making such finding, the City Council shall take into account the number of persons residing or working in such buildings or upon such land and traffic conditions in the area.among other considerations. ATTACHMENTS: Application Project Plans. Style 20 Style 50 1, AUTO FIRE �--- LIFE ^ SYmooi of Suconcr Serrire +� BUSINESS •�- Style 20 Style 100 - - --•. -- - - Af Sou,f4 o V ,EAS st 9 r1 E,v D. �e ,b 0,4 s o k A /9 0 17" ll-,��,�I' ;ir'N't zp IMI k PI Rol 0 .-M. -f -5 ev. k - K V TP sL • TO of;f- i ny., .4. 0%, .'.T, 'Kai•r,n• i rsr cL •F PP p A N A IN, Wi. 0' _L4 t T q , glIq ? kj E4S!, kl, 'f rr A. Rik 'A 41 Planning Application Review: Case No. CUP/V/87-14 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Project Location: 206 South Fifth Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family/Duplex Zoning District: RCM Applicant's Name: Ronald Gullickson Type of Application: Variance and Conditional Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit for addition of one single family dwelling (Carriage House) with a 19 ft. variance to rear yard setback requirements. DISCUSSION: The application is to construct a Carriage House, three car garage with dwelling unit above in the Medium Density Multi -family Residential District. The district regulation use the RB Duplex District setback -requirements for single family structures. The RB setback requirements are 25 ft. Six feet is the proposed rear yard setback. There are adjacent garages to the rear that are close to the property line as shown on the site plan but the proposal before the Commission is considered a main building not an accessory building. The proposed Carriage House is 30 ft. tall. This adds to the impact of being located six ft. from the property line. The design of the Carriage House is similar to the design of the older single family residence on the lot. There is space on the 159'x150' 23,850 sq. ft. lot to locate the proposed structure without need for variance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Carriage House shall meet the 25 ft. rear yard setback requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of Variance. Approval of Conditional Use Permit as conditioned. FTNnTNW; - Variance: The proposal does not meet setback requirements. Conditional Use Permit: The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of this Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: , Application and project. f A 1'Ak+ 100 Case NU4P/ __'r* ----= -- Fee Paid ---- Z_Q_0___ Date Filed --- PLANNING ADMI1IS 1 Rai IVE FORM Street Location of Property: 20�a _ S©__ 1-- S --- -n� _LL=`,'OTTOE! Legal Description of Property; -_______-------------------------------- Owner: Name ------------------------ 2 Z9- Address 20 � __��_-- �=�----�------ Phone: y3°'---------- __�a2__ _ Applicant (ir other than owner): Name __ ______�S � � r------- Address _ _ Type of Request: - -------------------------- Phone: --------------- --- Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat _Variance ___ Other ___________________ Description of Signature of Applicant.rcJ��rr:. Date of Public Hearing: _---------------------____-_____---____-_____ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back of ,this form or at- tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot, 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. o. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied __- by the Planning Commission on ------- (date) subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions• •------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Comments: (Use other side), (G A)P,� //*077) vV\--I. -e-rg S w l ( h-c red -t D w c� Ion tL lap Sjdi LL I'A f�?�V%-\ P) FIp Lp- a� �� 5o p-------I�.0 vA d-�../` - - � Y t ' -tZ. { �/ •i_$�' ��cA.a-s+ t��rrl:`Cs✓+c: }; . a .. — �wS, �, Z.;-•'t_��;-. - -- - '{:�'.- i.�'^.i ._ .-.. .�-.; . _ ...;K' . _ ! w- �� ,_ _: ++fi�fLiw�4r+'e :or 7S : .. - - _ _ .._:. - --_,.:- . . � ..�.,.. , .�:✓=:'+,�i �}''..'r��`�r� •frY'S..r'w'°C+L'.r�=+Rr' :.ut's!� •_ ... :::[:�jy?;...d; .7 : -.:. _ - . . -.�� fir; `�_ `'• _- .- . , - - - � �--._:.-... 'F � . � ...�.. _ :... 3 l0 O tn e 1 � y i•` - r -II �. Z-7 � 2,' (a &5T) i/ Tiol�f To: Planning Commission From: Planning Director Date: March 11, 1987 Subject: Public Hearing on Brick Road Street and Land Use Plan. RACKGROUND: For Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 1987 Pond/South Greeley/Forest Hills/Frontage Plan as an Amendment to the Comprehensive The Planning Commission is in the process of developing a land use plan for the area between Forest Hills and the Highway 36 Frontage Road on the North and South and Oak Park Heights on the East and West (see attached map). At the Commission meeting of February 23 four road alignments and public utility locations were considered. At the Commission meetings of February 23rd and March 9th the Commission considered land use alternative designations for the area. Property owners, area residents and affected local and regional agencies have reviewed the plans and commented on the alternatives. STREET ALIGNMENT: Four street alignments were presented for Planning Commission consideration The selected street alignment, Alternative 3, runs from South Greeley on the West along the School District property 1,800 feet and ends in a cut de sac next to the Oak Park Heights/City of Stillwater boundary. A right of way is shown providing for the possible connection of the cul de sac to Oren or Osgood Street at some future date. (This alignment is consistent with the Highway 36 Comprehensive Plan.) A connector road runs South from the access road to the Frontage Road. The road is located along lot boundaries providing access t❑ the adjacent lots. The cul de sac length from the connector road is 750 feet longer than the 600 foot City standard. This is somewhat mitigated by the future possible connection of the cul de sac to a through road to the East. A parallel secondary Frontage Road will become more important if Highway 36 is developed to freeway standards limiting East/West access. The storm sewer and sanitary sewer facilities are shown on the attached map. Two detention basins are proposed to control runoff before draining into the Brick Pond. Sewage service is provided connecting to the Harriet Drive line. Both facilities have capacity to handle the new service area. LAND USE DESIGNATION: At the March 9, 1987 Commission meeting seven land use alternatives were considered and City Comprehensive Plan and Housing Plan policies applicable to the site were reviewed. The City Planning documents indicated a need for vacant land suitable for multi -family housing, land use compatibility of new development with surrounding area and need for recreation facilities in new residential areas. After Commission review of the existing zoning and sewer alternatives Staff was directed to prepare three alternatives for consideration at the March 23, 1987 public hearing. The three alternatives are attached (Alternatives 5, 6 and 7). Alternative 5 is the Commission preferred alternative. All three alternatives indicate Industrial Park/Commercial land use along the Frontage Road and South Greeley. The differences in alternatives are in the density designation of the Residential Area. Alternative 5 designates all 20 acres of the Residential Area, RB, Duplex 8 dwelling units per acre. Alternative 6 designates the area North of the access road and East of the connector road, approximately 14 acres, R-B Duplex and the Residential Area West of the connection road RCM Multi -Family Residential Medium Density 15 dwelling units per acre. Alternative 7 designates the 6 acre area North of the access road RB Duplex and the Residential land South of the road RCM. The three alternatives could accommodate 150 to 230 dwelling units depending on density. As called for in the Comprehensive Plan, all three alternatives incorporate a 100 ft. buffer between the existing Residential area and the proposed residential area. Some or all of the buffer may not be necessary with the RB designation. A neighborhood park/open space area is provided at the end of Harriet Drive. This would provide open space/recreation space for the existing and new residential development and helps buffer the Single Family Area from the Multi -Family Area. ALTERNATIVE REVIEW: The alternative land uses have been submitted to the School District, the City of Oak Park Heights, area property owners and residents for comment. Comments to date have been reviewed from residents of the Forest Hills area and School District. The School District is concerned with the road location and possible cost to the School District. The Forest Hills residents would like to see a RB land use designation for land South of the Forest Hills area. Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 would result in 20 acres of land being converted from Industrial to Residential. According to the City vacant Industrial land supply and projected growth, there is adequate vacant Industrial land to 2000 with the loss of 20 acres to Multi -Family Residential. RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing the public utility plans and road alignment.land use plans alternatives and hearing public comments the Planning Commission can recommend an alternative to the City Council for approval and consideration at their meeting of April 21, 1987. Once an alternative has been decided by the Council, a follow up Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment will be prepared. ATTACHMENTS: Maps; Comprehensive Plan, Existing Zoning Alternatives 5, 6 and 7. Letter from Independent School District #834. Letter from Forest Hills Residents. • L.i_V_ 2 c 1� Cr" CF 57i—WADE! N x 2 STILLWA-EF TCWNSH = I N Ica m O oCD I l I to m — p IBRICK a ( r 1 POND f I N z C U Z �; I L.CA � I li x���mt1 i1 r 0 -0 m1 I 4 +h nRry£ I Z. Id a yvop'I■� >m y m co cc 0) WI ��0 z =i ; z O f IjI f` cn -<mi ll w tzm-0 � ► m zO m m m': U r-'' N c p m N m +� m->i Fm n ib •• m � Co m M ��.�..��.OAKjPAnK +'1tiVn a � O 'o CD m v a r z m z 'i r= r a m m z i N^ f fO w u N to W C." F S'• I !I f 1 = Lr 1 toc f Ick) mt i f , f f +i n m "a � r-rt �xsx �aj001G]F mi� 0 0 �Ommjj� zi f taco > co co a —.11 z O i > m1 1{I N dw I CA1 miIf co f f GAO I Z R10 m zm �m m'll �� ~G f o m f �� qft, 4 :=; • =0 0', z � 1 � t l h 1a K o 4+ �{ f J y CO C OAK4p R K rlt,un . i 2 Iw .C) 0 CD m v D r z K m z Ic N Lp G W C-1 ^F 5711—W4—: F f l S71LLWt,—EF 7CWNSM = I I +� Ic ICA I W W mma� r� LMd W ` Y 4 y 2 R A R � N h Q � v � I ` V, IBRICK POND r� 1 �' LLvr = r � x m �I � ,0i mf f ma f nRr� 0 ofZA DO rj) comi m� C•' ( i 7m co m > m cn i zfw + -1 Z O i I •� .0. j 'y YI N (C vm. �> cry - z z mi y! I Cn m,: m mf' I W m f I �! wm N � > m � 0 1 W �, � O I� v 1 JA14PAAK rfLiun 1 sari. vow f A l ry . c-i__wL-EF TQw•r.5ti' � i ;� 1W ,M i.M l 0 1;m � Tv 0 `�`� RICK D ' I POND Z t c m . z I I A CA -I m -u -Ur x m M: m �3 r �w0O 0-0 C) m r KOmm-� z � V) Z A M z cn cn' -1 z -i` c �—+m m Z D :;M :1�� _ imvv Z �(n _- cDn�p Cn I Z Z -0 i M cn j m y O m m - -n O r--- r M.t= v D I a �. m -� m � � ? m iV co N U_ cb o • I ✓ rAbL _ OAK PARK ME,Gn7S � i '' T 3p 11 �ay D 2 7''ll La V G U c F i D At b � r trAM USAW z r fir) T� z p G1 .r br 0 b t: 2� t, Y r D C C b D 0 L W. March 9, 1987 Mr. Stephen Russell Community Development Director CITY OF STILLWATER 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Russell: Re: Land Use Proposal for Brick Pond/Forest Hills/ Frontage Road/Greeley Street Area Plan The residents of the Forest Hills area would like to recommend that: 1. The area not be left in IP-1 but be rezoned to R.B. with a limit of three to four units per acre. 2. There will be no extension of Harriett Drive. 3. There would be a vacating of Harriett Drive. 4. There would be a one hundred foot berm or green belt with a fence on the side of the new development. 5. There would be no tie in to the water mains in the Forest Hills area. This would drastically reduce the water pressure which is now a problem. 6. The new development not cause or direct any storm water drainage to the single storm sewer inlet located between 810 and 812 Rainbow Court. 7. The additional storm water diverted to Brick Pond would be controlled so that it does not cause deterioriation of or standing water in/near adjacent residents yards or home foundations. Page 2 The residents of Forest Hills support the development of this land in a responsible manner which will not cause the deterioriaLion of adjacent property value and quality of life. Thank you in advance for your positive response to the above recommendations. Regards, r o e r t E. arrow 1�*X for the Residents of Forest Hills 1601 Morningside Road Stillwater, MN 55082 612/439-6441 U Independent School District no. 834 March 4, 1987 Steve Russell City Planner - City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Steve: 1875 SOUTH GREELEY STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Phone 439-5160 This letter is in response to your request for a school district reaction to consideration being given by the City of Stillwater to zoning alternatives that would prepare the way for development of the property lying immediately south and east of our Administrative Service Building at 1875 South Greeley Street. In general, industrial and residential development benefits the school district by increasing our assessed valuation for taxing purposes. As school funding legislation over the past few years has tended to place more burden on local taxpayers, any increase in our tax base tends to lessen the liability assumed by current residential, industrial and business taxpayers. As the administration has reviewed your preliminary drawings on the zoning alternatives being considered,. however, one concern that immediately catches our eye is the street.development that would occur on our southern property line. It appears that we would be liable for considerable curb and gutter assessments for a road development that will not benefit our property. Neither now nor in the forseeable future are we contemplating property development that would benefit from the proposed road. There is one other matter that is worthy of your consideration. We understand that at least two zoning alternatives being considered would involve development of high density - multi family units. As you recall, the school district and city are Board of Education SUZANNE THOMSEN ROLAND BUCHMAN t Chairperson Clerk TOM SCHEUERMAN Vice Chairperson LOUISE JONES Treasurer LYMAN GEARY EDWIN CAIN An Equal Opportunity Employer KAREN ROSE DAVID WETTERGREN Superintendent Steve Russell March 4, 1987 Page Two currently spending time, energy and money in resolving the problem of the student traffic flow through the Forest Hills area as students move back and forth from the high school to the fast food and commercial outlets located along Highway 36. Unless some effective barrier system could be constructed as part of the residential development of this area, the addition of family units south of Forest Hills will accentuate this perplexing problem. 5 cerelyy/, David L. WettergrW Superintendent of Schools DLW/je cc: Dan Parker, Business Manager School Board TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS FOR WOODLAND LAKES PUD. BACKGROUND_ On June 3, 1986 the City Council approved the Woodland Lakes Final Plat and PUD plans. One of the conditions of approval was that the Developer submit specific architectural plans, landscape plans and parking diagram for Planning Commission review before the PUD permit is issued to make sure zoning requirements are met and the design details are consistent with the PUD approval. OISCUSSTON- The purpose of this review is to consider the specific plans and any changes or refinements in the originally approved PUD plans. The PUD plans approved by the City included a site plan, model of site showing the'site design and a drawing showing the concept North elevation of the Hotel. Because of the lack of design detail and use determination in the PUD approved plans, this review is required. The plans approved in June indicated a gross project floor area of 499,300 sq. ft. (322,000 Mall, 80,000 Hotel, 13,000 Bank., 14,000 Offices, 70,300 other commercial retail and 2,249 required parking spaces) spread across the site on thirteen building pads. The approved site plan and Hotel elevation is attached. The plans before the Planning Commission at this time are contained in the attached Woodland Lakes Refinements Report. The site plan has been reconfigured by consolidating the thirteen development pads into four pads (Mall, Hotel, Bank and Office). The overall gross square footage of building area remains at 499,300 sq. ft. The parking plan has been revised to support the new design and specific uses. The number of spaces required in the original PUD was 2,249 spaces. 2,100 spaces are provided in the proposed plan. The proposed number is consistent with the various uses proposed for the site at this time. Should the use mix change, additional parking may be necessary. The location of Curve Crest Boulevard has been modified in the proposed plans due to Minnesota Department of Transportation requirements for Municipal State Aid roads and concerns for coordination access to the County Road. Curve Crest intersects with County Road 5 has been moved 200 feet to the South. Because of this change the Final Plat that was previously approved by the Council will have to be modified to conform to the new land location. A design theme has been developed for the site (see page 18 of Woodland Lakes PUD Refinement Report). The Mall use mix has been changed from three major tenants and 322,000 sq. ft. to two majors and 404,750 sq. ft. The Hotel use has remained essentially the same but the building design has changed. The original concept elevation showed a five story, 55 to 65 foot Hotel structure. When this was presented Staff indicated concerns for the stark institutional appearance of the structure. The height limits for the IP district is 45 ft. but can be exceeded through a PUD review. The proposed Hotel is 10 level and 103 feet in height. The square footage of the Hotel is the same. A pedestrian bridge that was shown in the original PUD design has been removed and a stronger landscaped pedestrian walkway links the Hotel to the Mall. Two bridges provide uninterrupted pedestrian circulation over a landscape pond and Woodland Lake Boulevard. The taller Hotel reduces the land coverage and frees up more of the site for landscaping. The landscape plan shows 49% of the site in green space or ponds. The detention ponds are a site design feature that compliments the landscape plan. The submittal indicates that Parcels Three and Four will not develop at this time. The specific plans for these parcels will be to subject the floor area requirements and subject to detailed review when specific plans are available. ACTION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Review the specific plans and modifications, particularly the new site layout, parking, hotel height and landscape plan and make recommendations to the City Council. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised Final Plat shall be approved and in lieu of open space fee paid before Final Plat recording. 2. A detailed landscape plan listing the plant material. and indicating the number, spacing and size of plants shall be submitted for community direction review before building permits are issued. 3. The building pads and parking areas for Parcels 3 and 4 shall be established and maintained in lawn area until developed. 4. The Developer shall maintain the street trees and ponding areas as a part of the project landscaping. 5. A sidewalk shall be constructed North from the project site along woodland connecting to West Orleans Street. 6. A lighting plan and light standards shall be submitted for Community Development Director's review before building permits are issued. 7. Signage for the Mall and Hotel is limited to the signage proposed in this review. Additional signage for Parcels 3 and 4 shall be reviewed at time of development. ATTACHMENTS: Woodland Lakes PUD Refinements Report. Project Plans. BOTH w� n IIIIIIIIfIil�i�llil7�f STREET Iillill111- f1ffA[]fll>� amT11fTIIlIiTfRiRlifitTRfRfifflClFfffil! � �``. ! t �J VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIHHNIIIIit� � VIIIIIIHIIIIh .a . � HIIIIIIIIh�IIIIIIIIIIIV{IIIIIII!Iillllii1110`, VIIIHI+!I�a i�1J11illi"�- !;, ''_ O+IIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIV�' �ilHl!III11V' _ � = '= 0{HIHHNI!IIHIIIIII+IVY oNh VIIIIIHIIIIi� ;, Vlllllilllllllllllllllllla wnAy MIIIIH* zk � P, ° VIIIIIIIIIVIIIfIIIIIIH+a , �� I 4' C IIIIIIIIIIVII+IIIIIIIIII� VIIIIIIIIIII� I,il�"k't'� r IIIIIIIINVIIIIIIIIIIIIIC �201 a cIIIIIIEIII{HIi1H{IiHlf+}!I++I}IIl9� �� fll+ll{IHVHIIIIIIIIH� ta� ��m �III!IHI�IIiII!�}HI9HHH{+l� rrrrilr�rrr, liluuwnniuuhnrb — �N .-nm . m nn�T �- LA rr 9 pillinilllIllll}Illll!H ? rl Irll, GiliiiliuTuiliiulli o�Hllllilll➢lllillillpHE/ �T __ aHIIHIIIaIHIIIIH}�tn@I{IIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIH`rd 43 Vllllllillllllllll!II� ��� �IIIi++fHIIIIIIIIIIIU �'' '� l DIIHIIIIIHO' ' �" 7 VHHi i-Il HIIIIII1IVt 1 f' n Vl+lllllll�lllllll�lll�t o; �z• pIIIIIIIIIIIV' � - "lUwv,, '� - VIIIIIIIIIVHIIIIIIHIVt :� "� aIHIIIIIIIIV• "» IHIIIIIIIH VIHIIIIIIVIHI�IIII{la VIIIHIIIIIIV' Qil++{IID' ' 0111�I11111111{i� 011111111111V' �,'` f0. fl r, � VHIII+Illllllla IHIHI� � a �~ = P (� Y p! iliHl}Illl VIHH+IH+IV' 1II3I 4: fLyl ti�d ra y '� 1 �i m �.' I E� � ,IFilllifiillll< CO � �llll i �• 1' E i :98q 9 P$ 9 f 'i1 n tit d: a E� 1 MVELVEG BY: &WOOBL•AHIM LAKES ammfu(aw Mal" &T t"EfE1W -a. STILLWATER . NINNESOTA 73A3 E. Cate Ato ;4.' Road St Scnttad1602) 994-1770 69853 0 MEN ■ ■■m ■n ■■ ■n .13 ME will nn ■■ all SO ON ►0VIlr ALV a�--- o4c�?—,rl J,& I— �7� -+Lf—:::vA i , i f I „ I11 - GouTH, ICI �S"r L�v� i lo►,}s sIMILA� IN coHcC-►7